subreddit
stringclasses 11
values | text
stringlengths 246
28.5k
|
|---|---|
worldnews
|
You can't use someone's death as a reason to punish someone else. It's ridiculous. You have to stop looking at the terrorist and start looking at the people you are punishing.
I don't like to dive too far into the past and try to focus on present or the past 30 years at most. The Jewish people "cleansed" from the middle east helped form the backbone of Israel as we know it today. Israel would not have been nearly as strong if it weren't for immigration. Terrible, yes, but Israel did benefit from this greatly. Also let's not forget the Palestinian refugees driven away and never allowed to return but let's not pretend you care about those people and their homes and properties. At least Jewish people can return to Morocco now.
What I'm talking about is why is it happening now? You're also making the Palestinians pay for what Morocco did 70 some years ago? I'm not really surprised since Bibi was trying to pin Nazi concentration camps on Palestinians too.
Yes Israel left Gaza but is actively cutting through and taking over the West bank instead. You can't be serious about the two state agreement if you continue actively steal land to build settelments on land you're supposed to give back.
|
worldnews
|
> I don't like to dive too far into the past and try to focus on present or the past 30 years at most. The Jewish people "cleansed" from the middle east helped form the backbone of Israel as we know it today.
*It's ethnic cleansing, but look on the bright side.*
It put immense strain on a nascent Israel. You're letting other states off the hook for their role in the conflict and diminishing the suffering they caused to hundreds of thousands of people because there were tertiary benefits to Israel in the long run.
> At least Jewish people can return to Morocco now.
/slow clap. Yeah they can come back until the *next* pogrom. But I guess that's ok because Israel will then have the opportunity to make lemonade and benefit. The same way Israel benefits from French Jews fleeing antisemitic violence in Europe. They're people, not pawns. Immigration *should* be a choice, not a decision based on fear.
> Also let's not forget the Palestinian refugees driven away and never allowed to return
that's why it's called an involuntary population exchange. Worked out for India & Pakistan because each naturalized the refugees rather than maintain them in camps in perpetuity for the sake of blaming the other.
> You can't be serious about the two state agreement if you continue actively steal land to build settelments on land you're supposed to give back.
Israel is constructing homes in the parts of the West Bank they expect to keep. If Israel was able and willing to uproot every Israeli from Gaza they can do the same for the parts of the West Bank that are ceded to a nascent Palestine. Tough luck for those who built homes on a political fault line.
> let's not pretend you care
Let's not pretend you care about the lives of Israelis because you're fixated on the fact that more Palestinians happen to die in an asymmetrical conflict they can't possibly win through force of arms but keep trying to murder as many Jews as they can anyway (when they aren't 'accidentally' murdering Arab-Israelis they mistake for Jews). It's easy to offer empty platitudes like 'fuck terrorism' but that doesn't stop it. That doesn't save lives.
|
worldnews
|
Looks like NOBODY read the article. This is about confirming it’s you when you make purchases. Nothing else. If you wanna buy a $10 app all of a sudden and take 4 mins to type in your password your trust score lowers. If you frequently buy and it’s normal spending, your trust score increases. Credit cards do this to prevent scammers. If all of a sudden “you” are buying apps in India when you just bought something from the AppStore in Oklahoma 20 mins ago, it also lowers your trust score. It’s in the TOS.
|
worldnews
|
You have fleshed out what the article (and linked articles) said a lot. Is that because you have personal experience with the project as an Apple employee, or is it because you are connecting the dots of the cryptic statements that Apple put out there, or is it because of what you read in the TOS? If it's the last thing, please tell us what you remember about what you read.
I went on to read [this short article, too](https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/apple-trust-score-iphone-data-black-mirror-email-phone-fraud-a8546051.html?amp#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s).
I think you're wrong, because there is **no reason** Apple would have to gather information about the phone calls you make or the emails you send in order to compute such a trust score. Do you disagree? How would such information conceivably be useful in that context? Explain that.
|
worldnews
|
> ... there is no reason Apple would have to gather information about the phone calls you make or the emails you send in order to compute such a trust score.
What methods do you propose to try and combat click farms: https://imgur.com/gallery/0JQs0
When you use a website, like for a bank, they can record the way the user scrolls and moves the mouse around - and it's very different between a human vs automated script. And one thing Apple is interested in is being able to fight fraudulent purchases and ratings in the App store.
|
worldnews
|
Additionally, they don’t gather direct call and email info. Instead they gather how many and how long your calls were. How many emails you send. For example I send maybe two emails a month. If all of a sudden I start churning out 160 emails a day for two weeks non-stop, something’s off. In fact, it used to happen with an app I had. It would send daily download links to anyone with an email address in my contacts, and would automatically tweet about it daily.
|
worldnews
|
> When you use a website, like for a bank, they can record the way the user scrolls and moves the mouse around - and it's very different between a human vs automated script.
Bullshit. That would require way too much processor time on the user's computer. It's possible to do things that are like that with javascript, but I don't think banks want to burden the CPU of their clients that much.
Click farms have **nothing** to do with what the article is talking about.
> And one thing Apple is interested in is being able to fight fraudulent purchases and ratings in the App store.
Do you think that they are collecting information on phone calls and emails because they are concerned about **ratings** in their app store? That's absurd. No company would do such a thing.
|
worldnews
|
Sorry... Insert two quarters and try again.
All you are doing is **speculating.**
I don't buy your explanation. If there is an trojan horse going wild on your phone using your phone's email software to send emails, then that is a very rare case. I've never heard of such a trojan horse for iOS, have you?
Explain exactly why Apple would want to close down the ability of a user to buy apps on the app store or make purchases with Apple Pay because your device has been infected.
If the issue is trojan horses, the article would have stated that clearly.
|
worldnews
|
As in the text (funny a "secret" program is actually mentioned, isn't it?) it is to calculate a *device* trust score, not a trust score for you.
Read me other post:
https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/9hqzw9/apple_is_quietly_giving_people_black_mirrorstyle/e6dzbk3/?context=0
Your phone is a financial device. And **it can clone credit cards** (see how in link). This is to help Apple prevent people from using iPhones to clone credit cards. If you use your phone a lot, they trust the device. If it looks like it's a device used only for one purpose they don't trust the device much at all because it may be being used to scam that service.
|
worldnews
|
Or iMessage spam?
To send an iMessage requires the device identify itself and be a legit device.
So that cuts down spam a lot. People can't spam for free. But they still can spam by buying a device (probably used) and using that ID to spam until Apple blocks it.
So Apple has to be able to figure out how to block devices before they can make enough from spamming to cover the cost of the device they buy.
If you generate a device trust score it helps with this. If you see a device has done nothing buy send iMessages and to hundreds of different people you can block it quickly with little risk of blocking legitimate users.
|
worldnews
|
> Bullshit. That would require way too much processor time on the user's computer.
Wow, we're not talking about bitcoin mining here - [which some websites do](https://medium.com/@MaxenceCornet/coinhive-review-embeddable-javascript-crypto-miner-806f7024cde8). Simply keeping track of a few mouseover() events or if the user scrolled down before clicking on something is not processor intensive stuff, and it helps in identifying possible automation/non-human users. Also I'm a software engineer, I've written code to do this stuff.
> Do you think that they are collecting information on phone calls and emails because they are concerned about ratings in their app store?
Yes. Identifying whether a device is being used by a typical human vs automation/scammers/whatever is very useful. Whether that's to stop spam calls, or fake app reviews, or fake purchases whatever, that information is useful. Collecting generic stats like how many emails/phone calls you send/receive helps.
|
worldnews
|
I appreciated reading what you said about Apple Wallet. However, clearly what the articles are discussing is an entirely different matter.
**A Device trust score** using information about what phone calls I have made and emails I have sent? Sorry... that doesn't make any sense at all.
You're taking your knowledge about one area, and then assuming that Apple is discussing the same thing, without closely looking at the details that were revealed to see if they match.
|
worldnews
|
> it helps in identifying possible automation/non-human users.
OK... but the article appears to be talking about differentiating one human user from another. Do you disagree?
I draw a big red line when it comes to your argument about a company collecting information on emails and phone calls on *personal devices* in order to protect their ratings on websites. That would not occur. No company would be that stupid.
I think that your blasé assertions that a company like Apple can and should in good conscience collect any kind of information it wants about users and their usage habits of their devices and communications they make with family and friends in order to stop offenses that happen in the **public sphere** is quite reprehensible.
|
worldnews
|
>OK... but the article appears to be talking about differentiating one human user from another. Do you disagree?
It's the same thing.
Differentiating two humans from each other, and differentiating a human from a script uses the same information.
>I draw a big red line when it comes to your argument about a company collecting information on emails and phone calls on personal devices in order to protect their ratings on websites.
Not "their ratings", **all** ratings. Fraudulent rating in app stores is a huge problem. The rating system is used to help with screening bad apps and other problem behavior in the app store.
>That would not occur. No company would be that stupid.
Almost all companies do this. Personal devices aren't some magic bastion of privacy, almost every app and device includes language that allows similar data collection.
|
worldnews
|
No, it isn't a different matter.
To clone a credit card you need a device. You would use a device which you don't use for anything else, because you don't want anything tracked back to you, since cloning credit cards is illegal.
So Apple would like to know if the device looks like it is being used by a person to do normal things or if it's just being used as a "burner" to scam services (like Apple Pay). If it's the latter they would not let you put credit cards on it, as you're likely doing it to scam. If its the latter and you start send a lot of iMessages to hundreds of people (and do nothing else) you are likely using it to spam (scam iMessage), so they would block the account.
Having scores like this helps them block scammers while minimizing errors of blocking legitimate users.
I closely looked at the details. They match.
|
worldnews
|
>A Device trust score using information about what phone calls I have made and emails I have sent? Sorry... that doesn't make any sense at all.
It makes perfect sense.
A person is going to make a fairly predictable pattern of phones calls, of a predictable range of duration.
A phone operating within those norms is going to have a higher trust score than a phone that makes 100 2 second calls a day, or zero calls.
Same goes for emails. The vast majority of phones aren't going to be used to send hundreds of emails a day, allowing apple to maintain a inherent distrust of devices that behavior in an unexpected way.
This makes it easier to block compromised phones, or phones used for click fraud, or phones being used for purchase fraud.
This type of general usage data is essential in effective screening.
|
worldnews
|
> collecting information on emails and phone calls on personal devices in order to protect their ratings on websites.
There are different types of data. There’s a big difference between collecting people’s names from emails vs collecting statistics on how many emails you send/receive per day. A few stats can help differentiate real humans from scripts to prevent fraud.
Your credit card company collects *way* more stats about you also to prevent fraud. Times of day you use your card, where you shop, how much you spend, etc. When your shopping suddenly becomes unusual they may flag those purchases as likely fraudulent. That’s happened to me - my card company called me up to let me know someone probably had a copy of my card and was buying stuff.
You’re free to complain to Apple and free to not buy their products. Unfortunately Google android collects a ton of information too - they are an ad company.
|
worldnews
|
>**A Device trust score** using information about what phone calls I have made and emails I have sent? Sorry... that doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes, it does. I’m not sure what else to say. If I only email/text very rarely for a few years and then suddenly begin spamming all my contacts with emails/texts that would be very suspicious indeed and Apple would probably want to know that it is likely I am not actually me.
|
worldnews
|
> Bullshit. That would require way too much processor time on the user's computer.
Oh wow, this is funny enough to make having read the chain worth it. You can install scripts that do this on your own website easily, along with heatmaps for click patterns and all kinds of other neat stuff for measuring user interactions. Applying this knowledge to antispam measures is brilliant and should be applauded. It reduces the nag factor, as a service using this may be able to stop enough spam by relying on passive input like this, and not need to interfere with the user at all. No more filling out annoying captchas and playing drone teaching minigames that "don't work" much of the time.
I despise and boycott Apple, and have for decades, but you're full of crap on this point.
|
worldnews
|
I happen to resent websites whose developers have installed unnecessary Javascript functions. Frankly, I think that the Javascript standard should be simplified and pared down. In my estimation, being a person who has used the internet since its public debut with telnet sites and such things, I think that web pages should be ideally written only with formatting code. I think that to create the ability for web designers to utilize the processor of the computer to run code was a BIG mistakes that the w3c made. When I as a user, wish to run a program, I choose to do so and I accept the risks associated with that. That program, if it's poorly written, could seize up my computer, it could contact the internet and forward private information from my computer. But I know when I run an app that I have the responsibility that comes with choosing to do that. When I'm browsing the internet, I am in a library looking through books. I am seeking information.
I, for one, do NOT despise Apple. I'm trying to get into using their equipment these days, because I want to learn iOS app development, but I do think that their ethic of keeping EVERYTHING the user does in the cloud is a really big security risk, and I do criticize that. I think that any company who actually makes it so that you can't operate your own machine normally without your private data in their cloud, somewhere in the world, really needs to be watched like a hawk.
|
worldnews
|
I think that you, buddy, are going to find yourself on the **wrong** side of history. The collection of personal data is something that should be strictly controlled by legal frameworks. You shouldn't just be able to do it, willy nilly, because of some random idea you had.
Europe has some fairly strong data privacy laws. If you and your buddies brigading this comment thread want to sell your software in Europe, you had better realize the importance of this.
|
worldnews
|
So what you're saying is you can't see how a company who makes a device which clones credit cards would want to try to find people who are scamming using it while not inconveniencing people who are using it as intended?
You can't see how the bank who would allow this device to clone their cards (each issue decides on their own to support Apple Pay or not) would want to see this done?
And thus the success of the service would depend on doing at least a decent job of detecting scammers?
Whether it's speculation or not, the details do match and your assertion that "it doesn't make any sense at all" doesn't fit.
> I think you're wrong, because there is **no reason** Apple would have to gather information about the phone calls you make or the emails you send in order to compute such a trust score. Do you disagree? How would such information conceivably be useful in that context? Explain that.
There is reason. I explained why they would want to do it. And even if it is speculation it shows that your argument that there is **no reason** was flat out wrong. You just failed to think of a reason.
|
worldnews
|
> It is for us to discern what they are actually doing and what the implications are for cell phone users, app developers, and the broader society.
That's not what you said before. Before it was a problem because there was no reason for them to do this.
Before you had a "can't explain that" attitude. Now that someone can explain it, the issue is what are they really doing.
If it's really up to us to evaluate, then it's time for you to make your case. Now that you have been shown there are legitimate reasons why they would do this it's up to you to show that the reasons aren't these but are instead nefarious.
Because your last argument was simply that they must be nefarious because there are no legitimate reasons. And that argument has been shown to be false.
|
worldnews
|
I still don't accept your usage case as a valid reason for a company to collect information about personal records - such as emails and telephone calls. However, I don't wish to argue what appears to be a red herring that we are chasing down this pathway that you have chosen to take the conversation.
The concern I have, as a relatively recent adopter of Apple products, is that they are way too intrusive as a company into the privacy of their users. You can't even turn on a Macintosh that you have bought, without connecting it to the internet, and then typing in your Apple account information.
I realize that software developers have had to move to a better framework in order to continue to make a profit. While I, as a user, rue the day that people started making subscription based applications, I understand the economic necessity, and that many customers are perfectly happy to pay for subscriptions. "App stores" for computers have solved the problem with software piracy in a way that has never happened for the music or the film industry. I admit that.
However, I **do not accept** that Apple needs to have all of my personal notes, and calendar data, and other assorted things on their servers somewhere in the world. I'm an old school guy. I believe that there should be a bright line between my usage of my computer and the things that I create on it - be it photographs, or text or other things with software - and the internet.
I DO NOT APPRECIATE the arguments of people like you who say, "Well, all of our personal life patterns are OK for Apple to make note of for any reason that they feel that they want to do so." I understand that people like you admire the late Steve Jobs and the Apple company, but I insist that there is a time to criticize company policies when they are setting a bad precedent for the future of human society.
By the way, Europe has some strong legal protections, when it comes to data privacy.. and if you're a guy who wants to make software that sells there, you should bone up on this stuff.
|
worldnews
|
> I still don't accept your usage case as a valid reason for a company to collect information about personal records - such as emails and telephone calls. However, I don't wish to argue what appears to be a red herring that we are chasing down this pathway that you have chosen to take the conversation.
Sorry, we've got nothing going here then. I didn't ask if you felt this was the reason but if you saw that it is a valid reason.
And when you say now, it's clear you're not actually considering anything, you just were speaking from a close mind all along.
And thus there is no point in continuing. You're not going to make your case with me (and probably not others) if you show you aren't actually considering anything.
|
worldnews
|
> Thus, there is no point in continuing
I'm sorry... I'm going to digress here, because it's become such a funny conversation. Let's quit talking about Apple and software design, now, shall we? Sigh. OK... what is actually happening here between you and me?
My first reaction was this:
*"Oh... WOW... you are such an American, aren't you? This is a classic way people in this country just want to shut down and leave a conversation whenever someone else wants to explain themselves in a more thorough way, or take the conversation into a broader context.*
*Fine, fare thee well!"*
You say that I am "closed minded." Why? That was the biggest thing I hated back when I was a teenager, myself, when talking to older people. Yes, I'm older than you are, I think. I've seen that there are real patterns in the world that happen over the course of time that need to be understood and thought about.
You may think that older people who "rain on your parade" as young people are "closed minded." But, on the other hand, are young men in America today getting the mentorship, role models and other things that they need in order to go forward into healthy adult lives? No. And that's tragic.
Instead of calling someone who is older than you closed minded, I would suggest that you go find some elderly person to help in their home, and see the value of the bond you can form with that person. It's incredible that kinds of things that you can learn to make your life better from someone like that!
|
worldnews
|
When the last Dutch who collaborated with the Nazis during the holocaust is tried, they get a right to recommend other war criminals.
I like how European leaders now are shocked, shocked! with what's going on in Israel. It's like they haven't been committing actual atrocities all over the planet for centuries. Not to mention actively selling weapons to questionable regimes in the present. The EU should change its motto to "do as I say, not as I do".
|
worldnews
|
So practically nobody has "your permission" because of something that happened 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago - etc. Because almost every major western country was embroiled in one ugly thing or another in its history.
And countries that weren't colonizers are not allowed to criticize you because of their gays, or their women, etc (basically any Middle Eastern country that criticizes you).
Well, I'm glad the Palestinians can rest easy knowing those filthy colonizers from eras before any of us were even born are not allowed to speak up for them. Really makes your day better as you anxiously wait the few hours of electricity and running water coming your way.
|
worldnews
|
Taste of what?
Because so far theres been no evidence it's a fabrication. Surely if this was a fake story a western media outlet would have picked it up, no?
I'm just not into using fallacy to argue. If you were to post a Fox News article I wouldn't just say "oh its Fox its most likely lying". Same goes for any outlet. Or should I say you're lying because you've posted on T_d before?
I do agree that the article is trying to put the blame on the general opposition and that is wrong. They kind of fix this when they say it was an extremist element of the opposition.
|
worldnews
|
Use a little critical thinking. The Venezuelan government's explanations of sabatours undermining their functionality as part of a large right-wing conspiracy never make sense when you consider the scale of what the Venezuelan economy should be. 40 tons of food? They expropriated 8,520 tonnes of sugar from Coca-Cola on the theory they were hoarding it to cause evoconomic damage.
40 tons of food being destroyed is, in the grand scheme of things, an amount that should be replaceable with the production buffer one would expect the government to have, yet they allege 40,000 families are being affected. Clearly, their expropriated food production assets are underperforming.
|
worldnews
|
> Opponents to the legalization of medical marijuana use often state that there is a correlation between pot use and criminal activity, as a reason to keep marijuana on the illicit drug list.
> But, the analysis carried out by economist Yu-Wei Luke Chu, writing for The Conversation, revealed that medical marijuana laws haven't led to an increase in the actual rate of violent or property crimes in nearly all of the states in which medical marijuana is legal.
> And, in California, where it is possible to obtain weed legally, crime rates actually appeared to decrease by about 20 per cent, Chu wrote.
|
worldnews
|
To be fair there absolutely is a mental "wall" with behaviour. If you break that barrier without consequence then you find it easier to do so again. Making weed illegal turns weed into more of a gateway drug than it would be otherwise. Similarly, alcohol is a gateway drug. Tabacco, even dramatic movies are gateway drugs because they encourage you to enjoy visceral experiences.
Of course, turning something into contraband because it increases risk by a little bit actually tends to make things worse. And, somewhat ironically, can even increase risk more. Idle hands are the devil's play things and all that. Thus, a liberal society that allows all behaviour that doesn't directly victimize people and that treats behaviour that puts others at risk as health issues instead of criminal issues actually minimizes damage from problematic human behaviour.
(And weed is less harmful than alcohol).
|
worldnews
|
There is a potential converse to this situation that I have not seen widely discussed.
For over 80 years we've been diluting the US criminal population with dopesmokers. What if they've been acting like the control rods in a nuclear reactor, providing a more rational, nonviolent buffer between the violently radioactive inmates?
Then you suddenly remove the docile, rational inmates by legalizing weed and your for-profit prison system is suddenly fissile with outrageously expensive hard-cases.
The financial solution seems to be to offer free weed to the hard-cases. Either that or destroy the minds and motivation of inmates through the surreptitious introduction of far more damaging drugs. They'll try the destroying-minds thing long before they'll try free weed and a Playstation.
|
worldnews
|
Yeah but it has been a useful way for police to search and seize. Marijuana is usually a catalyst for cops to look for other reasons to arrest people. It's also useful for targeting specific demographics as well and give cops an excuse to throw more people in prison. That's why I think legalization is an important step, because most of these people don't deserve to be there.
The gateway drug argument is attribution bias. Just because marijuana happened to be there, or happened to be the first drug, doesn't mean that it is the reason why people got into harder drugs and/or criminal behavior. It's just one more factor, but it cannot be blamed.
|
worldnews
|
More true now then ever, but that doesn't mean the marginal effect does not still exist. If it's technically illegal then there is significance to it. As a drug, there is significance to it. But, if you re-read my initial argument, you will notice that I am pro-legalization (and decriminalization of other harder drugs). Why? Because I think this marginal effect is outweighed by other factors.
I went out of my way to say that in the beginning to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings. But people don't seem to be able to decipher nuance in today's hyper distracted world. Which is no knock on anyone, by the way. That's just how it is now. And I realize you're pointing out a perspective to me and not necessarily pointing out an error. But my second post's point was that the above user decided to just drop to a snarky comment instead of actually trying to raise a point of significance.
I've seen it before and I think it's unfortunate when people drop to mistruths (knowingly or otherwise) to push some cultural or political movement. Even if they are supporting a cause that is overall correct (and they very well likely have good reason to believe is correct). Take for instance the gay acceptance movement. I think, these days, that most of us can agree that it's a good thing. However, a common argument pushed during the interim was that homosexuallity was "something you are born with".
Now, it's true that there are genetic factors at play and it's also true that environmentally shaped traits are not necessarily a choice (and sexuality is absolutely one of those that is not a choice). However, it was this mentality that has lead some homosexuals to attack, for example, bisexuals for being (supposedly) dishonest about their sexuality. That was an unnecessary regressive belief that became a necessary implication (to some) of this "good" mistruth.
Basically, my point is, there is nothing wrong with accepting or considering some fact or theory if it appears to disadvantage your position. It's better to be aligned (as much as humanly possible) with the real truth rather than trying to blaze through opposition with mistruths for "the greater good".
And, ALL of that said, I am open to the possibility that I'm wrong as well. Maybe there is no psychological marginal effect in breaking down mental barriers. But, while the effect is marginal and less significant the more normalized a behaviour is, I think it is something that must have some kind of effect. Like when you kill something it makes it easier to do again when you break a law it makes it easier to do again. Thus, it is my conclusion that having laws against things that are generally harmless actually does more to hurt the effectiveness of the law than it helps by mitigating any small amount of 'gateway drug' effect you would get. (In fact, I would argue that making it illegal actually amplifies the gateway drug effect by encouraging people to ignore advice on drugs when they learn that the scare tactics are a bunch of baloney).
|
worldnews
|
I'm absolutely judging your word choice: you meant to say something like a "cheap thrill" or "easy high." And these drugs produce a cerebral experience as much as they do a visceral one. Moreover, something like exercise *is* a visceral experience. Are we banning exercise? Anyway, I'm not here for the morality per se; I'm more just providing a grammatical courtesy.
*In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since. He said that if you ever feel like criticizing (or judging) anyone, get your grammar and word choice in order, or they'll totally pick you asunder on social media and make jokes and stuff.*
|
worldnews
|
Once again you missed my initial point. I never said that I believed we should ban visceral experiences. I also was not criticizing anyone with my original post. I was merely making the point that there are mental barriers and that even harmless experiences, indeed because they are visceral, can have an effect on these barriers. I then went on to say that this effect is overridden by other factors.
If I am dearly afraid of moving I am most likely incapable of killing anyone: therefore if I participate in something like exercise, and no ills befall me, it eliminates a mental barrier that prevents me from becoming a murderer. This increases the risk that I will kill someone. But if nobody is allowed to move we all die, therefore accepting this increased risk is far better than the alternative.
Similarly, making drugs illegal actually increases the mental barrier breach when drugs are done. Due to their highly addictive (as in enjoyable in this context) nature it is likely this will spread through natural social interaction. Thus, attempting to use scare tactics and the law to ban drugs, especially one that will not cause immediate negative effects to the user, will increase the risk that they will do worse drugs. After all, nothing bad happened the first time you did a drug so surely all the warnings about other drugs are bullshit too.
However, it's still a drug, and thus by using it you are breaking down a mental barrier. Someone who tells themselves "I never do drugs" is far less likely to try a new drug than someone who does use drugs. This doesn't mean people who abstain from drugs are better people or anything but it's not a phenomena we should ignore because our parents used the logic as a justification for unfair and counterproductive drug policy.
|
worldnews
|
I get that can be a catch 22 in a way, but i think that is tied into the dynamic of buying illegal drugs. I think it has to do with the whole gateway drug thing... weed isn't really a gateway drug, but by purchasing it illegally you're more inclined to be at the will of the dealer. You build a trust based relationship and eventually you're open to trying other things, people tend to build a tolerance and some have heavily addictive personalities. When they cant get that hogh or relief they are looking for they are more open to alternative. They'd turn to alcohol, whip-its, shrooms, or xans and opioids. Does this happen to everyone? God no... but the fact that it does happen to some people is the reason why that's included in the narrative that pot leads to "criminal behavior" not like they're going to be breaking in places and stealing money to buy their weed. But statistically they'd be more inclined to be found guilty of multiple drug charges opposed to just the possession.
|
worldnews
|
Tell me about it. I throw the first lines of The Great Gatsby at people all the time. Nothing. Maybe I should start with "Who's there?"
Anyway, this person may not use English as a first language, or they have other problems…. No big deal. I'm a runner, and I need to structure the copious amt. of time I spend in the bathroom. But this guy naively straddles fascist/authoritarian beliefs while doing little to make any kind of salient point, so whatevs.
|
worldnews
|
I genuinely try to look past word usage, and to interpret cultural tones, and look at what a person is really trying to say. I mean it's impossible not to judge to some extent based on ignorance of language, and especially basics like spelling and correct word choice, but I try to use those failings to frame whatever inkling of a perception I have of the person speaking, where they came from, why they might believe as they do...
I guess I'm saying it's OK to correct and to criticise, but we need to be vigilant against bigotry while indulging in it. It's best to try to learn something about a person from their words rather than to pigeonhole them for their choices based on stereotypes - even if the stereotypes are frequently informed by kernels of truth, and even if it turns out one of them applies. Vigilance doesn't mean ignoring reality, either.
There is such a faint line between really hearing someone and applying our own version of reality to their words. I think more often than not the signal is lost entirely.
For example, I'm reasonably well educated and I have a decent command of English. The Great Gatsby references would mean absolutely nothing to me, as I'm not familiar with it. Does that tell you I'm not well read, or that my interests lay elsewhere, or that my circumstance just didn't expose me to it?
|
worldnews
|
i think of the internet and social media as a kind of horrible vice that i'm getting away with using. i generally don't think it should ever be used as a basis for intelligent discourse or sincerity; it's like taking in the news via TV vs reading.
anyway, this person was drawing lines on what people should and shouldn't do [without "judging" them]. and maybe they really weren't aware that they were. this is the type of person that ends up banning sex or dancing (*Footloose* joke) under the naive guise of "best intentions." anyway, i guess i'm saying that i believe most people have the ability to craft an intelligent argument on paper if they want--they're on the internet, so i know they have the resources.
and i consider the first lines on Gatsby or Hamlet fair game; they're so profound! otherwise, i rarely quote literature like that.
|
worldnews
|
While enjoying simplicity in life is absolutely a great way to be happy life is unfortunately complicated. So I take this perspective: it's okay to be wrong. I think we just need to be a bit more easy going when learning and raising points in any given discussion. I do believe it's important to dive deep into things and consider all of the possibilities. Thus I find value in raising and reading different perspectives on all kinds of minutiae.
|
worldnews
|
I wonder if homosexuality will continue to be a thing once gene editing embryos becomes mainstream. [Outside of this humorous scenario](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2ND7sAClHo), who would willingly subject their child to the unpleasantness that this still brings you in this day and age? Same for other undesirable traits like birth defects, mental illnesses like autism and so on.
Unsurprisingly, this possibility already has certain interest groups up in arms who wanna preemptively ban the procedure. Deaf people for instance have some pretty weird organizations that insist that there is nothing wrong with them. Guess that's what all this talk about being "differently abled" gets you: People willingly condemning their (and others') children to a life of, if not suffering, at least tremendous difficulties and reduced opportunities/possibilities.
|
worldnews
|
Ok, I’ll help you, too. It’s propaganda from a regime that censors the internet in its country, clamps down on dissent, and is guilty of massive human rights violations. It is a lie by default. This lie happens to agree with the New York Times and Washington Post that the trade war hurts America and helps China. That should give you pause. Here’s something that’s not a lie. Check out the Shanghai and Shenzhen indexes since the start of the trade war. Compare with the DJIA, S&P 500, and the NASDAQ. You’ll see that all had a big drop at the same time when the trade war started, but the Chines indexes kept falling, while the American ones are back to where they were and even better. This should give you a hint as to whether it is a lie or not.
|
worldnews
|
> Ok, I’ll help you, too. It’s propaganda from a regime that censors the internet in its country, clamps down on dissent, and is guilty of massive human rights violations. **It is a lie by default.**
I'm sorry but you can't be taken seriously if you disregard all information just because it's from people you don't like.
> This lie happens to agree with the New York Times and Washington Post that the trade war hurts America and helps China. That should give you pause.
Why should it give anyone pause because they are saying something which may infact be true (much to your disdain i'm sure).
If those news organizations got it right, then they got it right.
> Here’s something that’s not a lie. Check out the Shanghai and Shenzhen indexes since the start of the trade war. Compare with the DJIA, S&P 500, and the NASDAQ. You’ll see that all had a big drop at the same time when the trade war started, but the Chines indexes kept falling, while the American ones are back to where they were and even better. This should give you a hint as to whether it is a lie or not.
Like most trump supporters, it seems like you don't understand that the stock market is not the economy.
The american stock market rose into the clouds right up until it crashed into the floor in 2009. It's built on speculation, not trade.
So using that as a yard stick is frankly, pretty stupid.
|
worldnews
|
> Selectively telling the truth can have the same effect as lying
*Effect as* is not the same as *is*.
> plus really one would be crazy to think they're not lying about anything or not lying more than independent journalists.
Nobody said we shouldn't check the information for accuracy.
What i *am* saying however, if that if you think they lied about anything, point out what it is.
Ironically, you calling them lies if they aren't, is itself lying.
|
worldnews
|
> Effect as is not the same as is.
In both cases you're being intentionally manipulated to think and act against your own good. The effect is more important than the word we're gonna assign to these actions. And the same intent is there in both cases.
>Ironically, you calling them lies if they aren't, is itself lying.
And saying they're not lies if they are lies is itself lying. If you think Chinese propaganda has never told a lie well that's your problem not mine. I'm not gonna waste time checking and proving something that is an absolute certainty to me. In fact I'm certain that just about any source lies and to think that Chinese propaganda which does it a hell of a lot more than the average, has never told a lie is absurd as you have insinuated by asking "Are they wrong about anything"?
|
worldnews
|
> In both cases you're being intentionally manipulated to think and act against your own good.
Incorrect. In one case you are being lied to. And in the other, you are not.
> The effect is more important than the word we're gonna assign to these actions. And the same intent is there in both cases.
No, it isn't. You may not believe this, but the truth *matters*.
If you think there's an issue with being told the truth. Make sure people know *enough* of the truth, to avoid whatever problems you seem to think there will be from them finding out half of it.
> And saying they're not lies if they are lies is itself lying. If you think Chinese propaganda has never told a lie well that's your problem not mine.
You implied propaganda necessitates them being lies. I very clearly stated the opposite, and said you should still check.
The point is, are *these* lies or not.
And stating that they implicitly must be because they originate from the Chinese, is stupid.
> I'm not gonna waste time checking and proving something that is an absolute certainty to me.
Then you live in an echo chamber, and it doesn't matter if they are lies or not. So why do you even care?
> In fact I'm certain that just about any source lies and to think that Chinese propaganda which does it a hell of a lot more than the average, has never told a lie is absurd as you have insinuated by asking "Are they wrong about anything"?
I have to say, your choice to never check anything you're certain of certainly can't be paying off very much.
You don't seem to be able to trust yourself to read a single comment chain without making a mistake.
I never said the Chinese never lie. I asked if what they had printed was lies.
You either understand the difference, or you don't. Which is it?
|
worldnews
|
It's not about statehood being good or bad but it being an option.
As a puertorrican, Trump saying he is not considering it because someone criticizes him is what irks me. What next? No aid or slow ess on aid because we didn't bend the knee?
He also said our almost 3k deaths were a lie fabricated by dems and fake media. No apology or anything there. Fuck Trump and much much more.
|
worldnews
|
I don't know much about Russian politics but my guess is that as Russia's democracy has disintegrated, Putin decided that pensioners and people who are soon to become pensioners are no longer vital to him staying in power. So he wants to cut spending on pensions and use that money for other purposes.
Putin is doing this now because oil and natural gas prices have been falling for years and he's short of money. He has to cut spending somewhere. He could have cut spending to the FSB and the army, but for a dictator like Putin this would have been political suicide. So he decided to screw over the common folk.
|
worldnews
|
More importantly, he's got a plethora of Russian oligarchs to keep happy, and he's already broken the biggest promise he's made to them, that they wouldn't suffer consequences for their habitual thieving from the Russian people and the international stock markets. The US has made sure Putin broke this promise too, by continually arresting oligarchs, seizing assets, and instituting tarriffs which specifically target the corrupt oligrarchs. This is the promise Putin made when he trotted out Mikhail Khodorkovsky on the international stage, in a cage, in a kangaroo court. He promised all the other oligarchs back then that IF they supported him, and gave him 50% of all their ill-gotten gains, they'd face no repercussions for their various financial crimes (which until this point had been taking money out of Putin's wallet). Putin did not account for the US systematically seizing assets oligarchs hide in the US, tariffs, or arrests of oligarchs abroad.
This has created a very difficult situation for Putin to navigate. I'd wager there's a lot going on behind the scenes in regards to keeping the oligarchs complacent. I'd also wager the pension issue is inextricable from the situation with the oligarchs, pretty much everything else is.
|
worldnews
|
I've read somewhere that the oligarchs are slowly testing the waters for a revolt. I'm sure it would suck to see your life's work get taken before your eyes overnight because of a peasant.
I think we may be witnessing the beginning of the end for Putin. I think the biggest irony will be how Russia remembers Putin. People couldn't talk shit about Stalin until after his death. The most frustrating thing is, an entire nation's potential has been squandered for one man and their expensive tastes for material goods.
I mean if you think about it, it's the ultimate humiliation for the USSR legacy-to have a leader succumb to the lifestyles of the West while stealing from the people-oh wait that's what communism was all about.
|
worldnews
|
The Euro is a currency shared by dozens of countries, and while each country can set its own fiscal policy (taxation, spending), not one country has control of its monetary policy (interest rates, inflation, money supply, etc). This makes managing the currency as a whole a difficult and volatile balancing act. Its unusual for a country to have control over fiscal policy, but not monetary policy, as these things can be intrinsically tied.
When things are going well, it sure looks fine. But when, say, Greece defaults and can't devalue its currency or manage inflation, then all of a sudden you have a currency crisis. Unless Europe becomes a more centralized political entity with EU-wide monetary and fiscal policies (which it won't, because the most basic form of sovereignty is control of taxation and spending, which no one wants to surrender to Berlin/Paris), the currency will always have a degree of instability baked into it.
In the US, the Federal Government controls both fiscal and monetary policy for the entire nation/currency. The traditional stability of the dollar, paired with the use of the dollar as the global reserve currency, both self support the continuation of the status quo. Most currencies are currently pegged to the dollar.
To move away from the dollar as the world's reserve currency would either begin, or be a response to, a global catastrophic financial meltdown. Not impossible, but hardly something you just do because you don't like the US.
|
worldnews
|
Any nation which does not have the capability to blockade and invade US territories. Defensibility of the target nation means little. As history has shown, the US doesn't need to win a conventional, superficial, "green" war to maintain hegemony. The "green" war we see on TV is just to soften the target through confusion and upheaval and, to obfuscate the murder of political opponents. The true strategic goals are achieved by CIA, mercenaries, and lawyers.
|
worldnews
|
The USD will lose its international reserve status, I am certain it will happen at this point.
Yes there will be a global economic collapse, but countries will eventually rebound. Not so much with the US still uncertain what happened and now facing crippling debt and rising interest rates as the demand for USD has gone down. That plus a swift depreciation of the USD to make the local ppp of the USD shrink by a good 20%. Fucked immediately and for good.
The immediate preceding and following years might be very violent, as you suggested why: the US army is undeniably the largest, strongest and most powerful in the world...
I keep repeating to US people the US economy is not its strength as it's similar to EU. It's the army protecting its currency and de facto controlling global finance.
|
worldnews
|
Yes friend, the many globalist socialist communist fascists want all of our thumbs! I'm sitting on my ranch in the American state of Iowa staring at ocean thinking of all those globalist socialists plotting about taking away our sovereignty.
My uncle Josef, who was famous kicker for baseball team the New York Patriots, told me on 4th of July that Obama was not great success!
As lesser American President Abraham Washington said in his song, "My country Timothy, long live statue of liberty, from purple mountain to sea, let brave people go home." This is true, no?
|
worldnews
|
It's true though, whenever I agree/support whatever the post is about, upvotes galore. When I express an opinion, and especially in a snarky way, HERE COME THE DOWNVOTES!!
My comment, for those of you who cannot discern it, is a way of saying to the world that I do not align nor support myself with our current staff of government, and that I fear for the safety of our country and would like to be excluded from any repercussions (as if that were even possible).
So, perhaps you should really read things before you snap-judge and jump to conclusions.
Sad life you must have...
|
worldnews
|
The sad part about this is a corporation that makes billions per year in PROFIT would have you feeling sorry for them like the are about to go out of business. We are talking about PROFIT. After everything is paid and accounted for the extra money that goes into the CEO's pockets. And because they wanted to make a few billion more this year, they will be "forced" to lay off workers putting people out of jobs, because the top brass sure as hell isnt going to risk only making $8 billion in PROFIT this year instead of 9.
Lets insteads think like short sighted shareholders that dont give two shits about America, and only care about what their shares are worth next quarter. Lets keep buying everything from China, and be at their mercy, because that way you wont have to invest anything in America and its more short term PROFIT. Makes me sick.
When American Corporations put PROFITS ahead of Americas best interest in such disgusting greed. They should be named and shamed.
EDIT: I Was incorrect about Tariffs just starting. Edited
|
worldnews
|
They must give the profits to the workers then right? Obviously, every penny doesnt go into the CEO pockets. But here is food for thought....
*Ford releases salary, pay ratio data for entire workforce. Ford CEO Jim Hackett earned total compensation of $16.7 million in 2017, his first calendar year at the company's helm, the automaker said Thursday.* For one year. Most of that pay comes from stocks. Therefor it would benefit someone like that to do whatever to raise shares because they make a higher annual pay.
|
worldnews
|
So what company does he work for?!? Is it Ford or one of the automakers? No?!?! Then don't blame the automakers. What? Another stupid comment that makes no sense here about teachers. You're blaming Ford for something they CANT even control or decide dude. You need to open your fucking eyes. We have one of those places around here. They make interior parts for chevy vehicles. Guess what? Chevy has nothing to do with what that company pays it's people. It's a third party company. People that work there make about the same as your brother. It's not chevys fault. You've proven my point. Thanks again!
|
worldnews
|
>drinking vodka in public is the same as taking gravity bong hits in public
I'd be somewhat inclined to agree, but the way I read the government is saying, it looks as though taking gravity bong hits in public would be completely acceptable, which of course it isn't really for most people. Personally I think most people would be perfectly fine with handling being allowed to drink a beer in public without threat of legal problems (or confrontation with police) given that 1 or 2 beers won't mess anyone up anymore than a small quantity of whatever high powered weed is popular in the moment - it's either allow all or allow neither in my view.
|
worldnews
|
Well disorderly conduct is still gonna be a thing and im sure it will apply to weed. If you high enough that you draw the cops attention, as a smoker, i still believe you should get the same treatment as someone thats drunk. Being an obnoxious prick is being an obnoxious prick.
That being said, im pretty sure people who are drunk and can walk straight and not cause any sort of disturbance are not being hunted by the cops.
​
|
worldnews
|
As i said earlier, you cant have both. Theres 2 main areas...outside and inside. Most places you can smoke outside but not inside. You can drink inside but not outside. If you try to block both, people will simply smoke anywhere they can. There sadly a choice to be made, do you prefer they'd be allowed to smoke outside or would you rather they'd be allowed to smoke weed inside buildings/restaurants? Obviously option 2 is not viable anymore so...there is 1 left.
It was legalized, but a LOT of people are still at the denial stage. Anger will come and eventually acceptance. How long anyone spends at any of those stages is entirely up to them.
Most people are reasonable and wont smoke near others who dont. Trying to throw them in a cave somewhere will only make people do what they already have been doing for a while...smoke anywhere they want
|
worldnews
|
I think Amsterdam and Humboldt would like to have a word. Really some of the best indoor can be grown anywhere and light dep allows good outdoor from even places like Canada. Hawaii was the first place to produce awesome hybrids. Northern Lights, Skunk and Blueberry were some of the original American hybrids. Like all places BC has amazing smoke. They also have Beasters (BC Big Bud).
But yeah, beast in the world
|
worldnews
|
It is a huge symbolic gesture towards the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs
Basically says that the schedule of medical ganja within the SCND is no longer accurate and global commerce of MMJ should begin now.
Quality is for the market to sort out but first there needs to be the evolution of the SCND before that can happen. This is a big public handshake between two commonwealth countries saying that MMJ is legit.
We are beginning to see international MMJ commerce open up. Very very good news.
|
worldnews
|
A young man truly in love with his girlfriend decided to have her name tattooed on his penis. Her name was Wendy, and the tattoo was done while the penis was erect, so when it was not erect all you could see was W Y. Shortly after the couple was married they were honeymooning in Jamaica the man was in a bathroom in Jamaica, and standing next to him was a Jamaican man who also had a W Y on his penis. The American said to him "Oh is your girl named Wendy too?" The Jamaican replied, "No, Mr. that says Welcome to Jamaica Have a Nice Day"
|
worldnews
|
The ones with the best soil, most reliable rain, and most suitable climate.
Canada... Probably not - at least in bulk.
The USA and Amazon regions probably have the best climates and soils in the Americas. Mid-Africa, the Med and parts of India/SE Asia are decent too.
Really, it's called weed for a reason. It grows almost anywhere, but some better than others.
My guess is that everyone would have a crack, and it'd either become like coffee, which suits many different tastes, or it'd become more like tobacco - fairly homogeneous.
|
worldnews
|
i've been working help some companies retrofit greenhouses in Colombia.
IMO I like the area around Bogota the best right now. Reason being its probably the cheapest place in the world to grow indoor quality weed in greenhouses.
In the USA or Canada, they need expensive light deprivation systems, heating in the winter, supplemental lighting etc.. (canada is worse for this obviously) Which add a fuckton of costs.
Colombia being near the equator is pretty much in a constant 12/12 light cycle all year round, which means you can use cheaper greenhouses with no supplemental lighting except for some cheap household style LEDs to mimmick the vegetative period of the plant, rather than expensive lights for flower production. (most commercially viable cannabis plants flower based on seasonal amounts of sunlight hours)
Cheaper labor costs in countries like Colombia also allow for more attention to be given to the plant, allowing you to have craft quality at an economy of scale that the consumers will love.
I like the area around Bogota specifically due to its calmer temperatures. Cooler areas of the Equator basically.
For extracts..... If the governments allow it, the hemp industry will change to varieties they can get THC out of, harvest for Pens etc.. Canada alone had 125,000 hectares of hemp last year, this year we're allowed to process it for CBD.... Once farmers in the American corn belt want in on it, its gonna be fucking HUGE... they're a powerful lobby.
|
worldnews
|
It's not about developed vs third world country. Take Canada for example, most weed growers grow indoor with 24 hour climate control, soil are tested regularly to ensure optimal PH level for specific strains' growth, plants are trimmed/bent regularly to ensure maximum light exposure and yield... The indoor grow ops are much more expensive than outdoor ones and it encourages growers to maximize both yield and quality. Yes, natural climate is much more favorable in the tropical countries, but I doubt their grow op is up to standard compare to the Canadian ones. Canadian(BC especially) weed is consistently considered one of best in the world.
|
worldnews
|
I went there. I purposely didn’t buy from the guys hounding tourist. Went way off on my own and nearly got killed in the process. Found a guy. He tried to sell me some decent stuff and I told him “No, I want what you smoke” sure enough he had a personal stash. Was very fruity with almost a sweet orange flavor. Really sticky. It was compressed like brick weed but high quality. They definitely have some unique strains.
|
worldnews
|
I used to have a connect from their back in the late 90’s. At the time it definitely was some of the best but after California went medicinal and 9/11 that all shut down. They all got scared to smuggle it and I think the high end growers all migrated to the emerald triangle and were behind the legal push. Those crusty old farts are the guys who stayed and are probably a little bitter.
|
worldnews
|
That is because it came from way before the actual treaty was signed and was discovered in some "archive".
Would be like me using time machine on the internet and then saying the information on it is still relevant today, even though it may have changed a hundred times since then.
Israel is trying to deliberately spin the narrative and is using old documentation and powerpoint with pretty pictures to sell to the US, which they are successfully doing. The rest of the world however is calling BS.
Also, you are hearing that the IAEA is refusing to inspect from Israel. Do we have a statement directly from IAEA that is stating they refuse to inspect based on recent and relevant information?
|
worldnews
|
You seem like a deep thinker, and this subject intrigues me from a morality stand point. In your estimation, would the most valuable solution (to all parties' well- being and prosperity beyond the present and perceived future conflict surrounding the state of Israel) be for Israel to use it's covert or conventional means to destroy or apprehend these "known" threats, and use this destruction/ apprehension as a vindication of their preemptive strike? In other words, should they just exact forgiveness in lieu of asking for permission to inspect?
Again, I have no ulterior, pro, anti, left right motive or relationship to this issue beyond very much not wanting to witness one group of humans nuke another group of humans. Thank you in advance for your opinion, and any other resultant opinions shared on this topic, except those which are purposefully inflammatory and bigoted to arouse ire.
|
worldnews
|
Israel’s claim is that Iran’s nuclear program is still active, not that they’ve started a new one from scratch. So any information on the program could be useful.
Also the IAEA supposedly refused to inspect evidence that Israel did not release to the public, so it might be more than files from the archive.
Maybe we should wait for IAEA’s statement regarding the newly revealed intelligence to see if they “knew” about it too. And if they have some light to shine over it.
Also of course Western Europe won’t care. Iran is a regional threat. They only threaten to destroy the USA and Israel as per their scapegoat policy. While their proxies are conquering parts of the Middle East like in Lebanon and Yemen. Have you already forgotten how Europe’s indifference murdered tens of millions in the last century?
|
worldnews
|
> Was Israel’s evidence also bullshit when they took out the Iraqi and the Syrian nuclear facilities?
I am not well versed on either, but I have heard that there wasnt an actual Iraqi nuclear weapons program until after the Israelis bombed Osirak. Israeli aggression convinced Saddam he needed a nuke.
> Dan Reiter has repeatedly said that the attack was a dangerous failure: **the bombed reactor had nothing to do with weapons research**, while "the attack may have actually increased Saddam's commitment to acquiring weapons." In 2011, and basing herself on new Iraqi sources, Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer said that the attack: "...**triggered a covert nuclear weapons program that did not previously exist** a decade later Iraq stood on the threshold of a nuclear weapons capability. This case suggests that preventive attacks can increase the long-term proliferation risk posed by the targeted state." Elsewhere, she wrote:
> The destruction of the Osiraq reactor did not delay the development of a nuclear weapons option because it [the reactor] was never intended to be part of such an effort. The French-supplied facility was subject to rigorous safeguards and designed to ensure that Iraq would not be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium. An examination of the reactor by Harvard physicist Richard Wilson after the attack concluded that the facility was not suited for production of weapons-grade plutonium. As a result, the attack did not reduce the risk that Iraq would develop nuclear weapons. On the contrary, it brought about a far more determined and focused effort to acquire nuclear weapons
So much for Israeli intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera#Assessment
|
worldnews
|
Don't forget the one-sided whiny victomhood complex comment.
"People hating on Bibi instead of the iran problem in question"
People are allowed to criticize Netanyahu for his decades long exaggeration of the Iranian nuclear threat.
"People talking about palestine instead of the iran problem in question"
People are allowed to talk about Palestine. The fact that you even phrase this in such a way indicates a guilty conscience.
"People talking internet shills instead of the iran problem in question"
If you don't want people to accuse your side of having shills, don't start an official government program devoted to the creation of shills.
|
worldnews
|
> With numerous people, including Bill Clinton, supporting the operation
Do you think I give a shit about what politicians (professional liars) who are subservient to lobby groups said at the time?
I choose to take more stock in the word of experts including Harvard Physicists who dont have a political agenda of sucking Israels cock or take paycheques from pro-Israel lobby groups.
These people actually studied the effects and looked into the history of Iraqs nuclear weapons program for years before they came to their conclusions. And they concluded Iraqs nuclear weapons program was either negligent or non-existant until after the bombings. They also concluded that it was the Israeli bombings that convinced Saddam he needed nukes to protect himself from rogue states like Israel and America.
|
worldnews
|
Really? That’s funny, because the portion that you quoted, and even put in bold, starts off with the opinions of two political scientists. Interesting that you didn’t assume they were “professional liars” or “sucking Iraq’s cock.”
When you pick and choose things that only support your predetermined narrative don’t pretend it’s because of your high standards for sources.
It’s pretty obvious that you had already decided what to believe before seeing the facts and just chose what supported your opinion and ignored/left out anything that didn’t.
|
worldnews
|
> Or its easier to attack a stranger than ask ourselves if there is a slant here
you mean, kinda like how you did.
> These aggressive responses don't need your highest achievement in life to figure out when someone is being a dick. Congrats on your community college degree. I'm sure your step dad is proud.
Lmao, so after bitching about getting aggressive comments, this is your response.
If your ability to read people is anything like your ability to read, period, then I fear I am wasting my time with an illiterate.
|
worldnews
|
I'd say it depends on what corner of reddit and when. I'm sure you could find subs that swing either way. However, I would make the observation that reddit's users probably skew slightly more intelligent, tech savvy, and younger than the population at large, which would also suggest a skew toward the left of the political spectrum. Not saying that there aren't smart, young, tech savvy people who skew to the right, there are loads of them...but they're a self-admitted persecuted minority. I'm sure there are a few barely literate MAGA-hat wearers browsing here while cruising through Wal-Mart on the Courtesy Cart as well...
EDIT: But reddit doesn't claim to be, nor should it try to be some kind of neutral arbiter with no agenda...its an aggregate of its users...not even all its users, but any given post or sub is an aggregated expression of the subset of its users that pay attention and choose to participate to that particular post or sub...you'll also get dogpiling and brigading which can artificially skew the apparent political "climate".
So "asking ourselves if there is a slant here" is kind of an moot question...slanted compared to what imaginary plumb line?
|
worldnews
|
No worries, I mean, its kind of a dumb question that might appear to be pure political trolling, but there was no cause for the responses that followed citing the "international nature of reddit" or bullshit about your "narratives"...its just real world demographics, you're not wrong, in places and at times there is, I am certain, a "lefty" skew. It just doesn't matter like your question seems to imply.
I am not a Leftist, nor a Democrat. I have been a "Fiscal Conservative", a Republican (until Bush II and the Rise of the Conservative Christian Right), and a "Libertarian" (until the term became muddied and contaminated by douchebags)...and I can, will and do say with some Authority that if I had to go looking for smart folks with logic and reasoning skills, I'm not looking anywhere near the current (political hacks and hoi polloi) Right in America. Ben Carson alone would have been enough to drive me out of the party had George HW Bush's kid and his cronies not already done it...I don't give a shit if the guy is a Black Republican unicorn and a World-Class Neurosurgeon...he's dumb as fuck in my book. The Pyramids of Egypt were granaries?!? STAHP.
|
worldnews
|
>Why has no one assassinated hin yet?
Whoa there. How about you disagree with his viewpoints. Don't you think that's a little far of a statement to make?
I do find funny that, as the interview starts you'd think the woman was starting off a segment about baking cookies. She definitely does not have the body language, the vocal tone of starting a serious interview about a serious subject.
Neither does Netanyahu, his demeanor, and tone is almost like a celebrity interview, and not being asked tough questions, nor the seriousness a subject like the one discussed merits.
|
worldnews
|
Basically there is a company called Pied Pipr that want to make the internet free for everyone to use while not having their data harvested. A lot of us didn't think they would make it, and quite frankly they're frequent failures became predictable and boring. Almost as if their hurdles were written by lazy writers.
But its a great thing that their in a position to launch now. Not necessarily because it will work but because it will give rise to future attempts that undoubtedly will.
|
worldnews
|
tl;dr tear down the walled gardens of facebook, twitter etc and allow everyone to host **their data** wherever they want
Currently, nearly all web applications (eg facebook, whatsapp, gmail, reddit, etc) are designed to run on a single thus centralised database which contains data from everybody on the platform, and each application has each own model for describing it's data.
SOLID tries to tackle mainly those two problems;
* linked data solves the Babylon tower of everyone using their own models though shared descriptions like https://schema.org so you don't have to guess what a field called `name` means by using `https://schema.org/givenName`.
* secondly, it sets out a stack of protocols designed to remove the centralised part, by describing which communication and data models a platform must use enables cross-application communication so you could have your social data (eg your profile, or a Twitter/microblog feed) on any server you want (hosted by a company, your tech friend, or at home on your computer or router)
Source: am linked data developer
|
worldnews
|
It can be sorted anywhere, but you shouldn't trust just anything. Data from your friend can usually be trusted just like in real life but there are additional measures to increase security and verifyability.
There are two potential scenarios here; Bob wants to comment on Alice's server, or a third party claims it has a comment made by Bob.
The first is about authentication, for which you can use any authentication system to verify who created some data on your system, just like with the web.
In SOLID, which essentially just puts more constraints on linked data, the [WebID system](https://github.com/solid/solid-spec/blob/master/README.md#primary-authentication) is preferred, where a user provides a certificate challenge to proof their identity. In a manner like WhatsApp where you can accept friend requests and verify their certificate with their qr like photo.
In the second scenario, we need to verify that the data wasn't tempered with by a third party (e.g. the russians), this is done with [data signing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signature)
Bob can [use his private key to sign his linked data comment](https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ld-signatures/), and share his public key on his server, so Alice can use that public key to verify whether it was Bob who made the comment, even when it leaves the original server.
|
worldnews
|
It's really quite dumb, actually. You have a situation now where you are hosting none of your private data on your own server. When you go use applications and web pages, they gather data about you. They're not requesting access from you for your data - simply using their website in myriad ways causes them to have your data.
This wouldn't work because it requires everyone to stop using the internet as they know it. It's ridiculous.
|
worldnews
|
We agree that it would work with electricity; the point is that it requires enormous amounts of it.
Here's [one estimate](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/what-is-the-embodied-energy-of-materials.html), which suggests it takes 5,550 to 13,900 watt-hours to produce one kilogram (about two pounds) of steel from iron. Glass is in the same ballpark at 5,000 to 9,700 watt-hours.
Glass and steel comprise the bulk of the weight of a typical solar cell (the rest being the fancy exotic stuff that's probably even most costly to refine and process). A typical 100 watt cell [seems](https://www.amazon.com/Renogy-Watts-Volts-Monocrystalline-Solar/dp/B009Z6CW7O) to run about 15 pounds or so, call it seven kilos.
7500 watt-hours X 7 kilos = ~50,000 watt-hours.
If you're investing 50,000 watt-hours to produce a single 100 watt-hour cell, you can see the problem. Just for the production of the glass and steel - never mind building the actual guts of the thing - you're running each cell for 500 hours of daylight.
If you just want to produce the frames, you're running 60 cells for every one you produce, and producing one per day.
|
worldnews
|
If a large solar plant can provide power for 100,000 homes or a million people why would you assume a factory can't also take power from it? And if solar/wind is cheaper than nuclear/coal/or even gas why would you think it economically absurd to take that cheaper power?
Your example of a steel plant isn't particularly good one though as they use a lot of energy but not a lot of electricity. Steel production uses natural gas and coke for heating and byproducts of this is used to generate their own electricity onsite. Electricity from outside sources comprises less than 20% of their energy use.
In total the entire US steel industry uses 322,378 GW/h of energy but that's mostly from natural gas burning and is no more than 40-60% efficient.
Let's assuming you could migrate a steel plant to purely electric heating systems. That's maybe possible with [new methods of electrolysis and people are working on it](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cleaner-cheaper-way-to-make-steel-uses-electricity/). If that could happen steel production could take advantage of renewable energy just like anything else making it cheaper and with fewer greenhouse emissions.
Another option is to use renewables to generate hydrogen to replace gas, this could also bring us closer to zero carbon steel production. [And again people are working on that too](https://www.thefifthestate.com.au/innovation/building-construction/sweden-aims-for-first-place-in-carbon-free-steel-race).
|
worldnews
|
They're good calculations, i like it when people try to quantify things rather than throw insults.
A possible flaw is that you are talking about a single solar panel paying for itself. But if they have a group of 100 panels already wouldn't that make it different? I'm honestly not sure but it feels more correct that way.
Out of interest I'm surprised it's so low to create a kilo of steel (10 - 20 kWh). I imagined a lot more because it needs to get up to like 1300 C / 2300 F .
|
worldnews
|
Well, here's an honest answer.
Consider the advantages to building the world's first solar-cell powered steel refinery. First, obviously, are huge reductions in pollution and atmospheric carbon. Second, it would provide a major boost to industrial adaptation of solar power for other high-energy intensive uses. Third, and perhaps best, there are surely iron mines which are located in remote, sunny areas, perhaps in desert locations. You could build the refinery on-site, exporting high-value steel instead of low-value ore, slashing transport costs and providing excess power to the mine operation itself.
Take it seriously, write it up. Do a gofundme, or perhaps apply for a grant, and have a proper feasibility study done. If the feasibility study starts with the phrase "LOL no", well, you've learned something important, and so have all the donors. If it starts with "a clear path for further development" then you can start looking for a corporate partner and you'll do more to save the world than any 20 people, and you might get filthy rich in the process.
And if you can make it work, I'll be your biggest fan.
|
worldnews
|
I assume the estimates refer to the per-kilo energy cost when making it in the usual batches (tons at a time). Small batches would certainly be less efficient.
S, if you wanted to make the frames for a hundred panels a day, you'd still need 6000 panels to power it.
And of course this is just production from iron and sand to steel and glass. Everything else is pretty costly too.
|
worldnews
|
When somebody builds one, it's feasible. It's not feasible right now, and you won't see one soon.
My confidence in this is because of the huge and obvious advantages of doing it right now, if it were even remotely feasible now. As I said to the other commenter,
>First, obviously, are huge reductions in pollution and atmospheric carbon. Second, it would provide a major boost to industrial adaptation of solar power for other high-energy intensive uses. Third, and perhaps best, there are surely iron mines which are located in remote, sunny areas, perhaps in desert locations. You could build the refinery on-site, exporting high-value steel instead of low-value ore, slashing transport costs and providing excess power to the mine operation itself.
If it were even close, we'd have already built them.
|
worldnews
|
Why would they have to manufacture their own steel?
The steel can come from somewhere else, but the point is that those refineries can themselves be run on electricity, which can come from solar panels. And it will actually be cheaper (even ignoring environmental externalities) than if you got it from coal.
This next part might actually shock you. The solar panels don't themselves have to be at the steel refinery, either.
Were you actually imagining, what? Like a big off the grid steel refinery cum solar panel mega factory, powered by rooftop panels and a hand churn? I can't imagine how else you could think your objections make sense.
|
worldnews
|
OK, look, I'm going to make one last valiant effort here, and then we can just agree to disagree.
The usual way of making electricity is by burning fossil fuels to heat water into steam, and using the steam to turn a turbine on a generator, which causes electricity to come out the other end. When you are all done, maybe 50% of the energy produced by burning comes out as electricity, [give or take ten percent](https://www.brighthubengineering.com/power-plants/72369-compare-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/). This is because some energy is lost at every step of the conversion process.
The usual way of making steel involves burning fossil fuels to melt lots of iron and steel. This is much more efficient, because you're just applying the heat directly to the iron, and not going through a turbine and an energy conversion process. So that, right there, kills your idea dead. Furthermore, much of the heat that might be lost can be recaptured, and used to generate electricity, providing even more overall efficiency.
So now you understand why a steel mill that runs on conventional electricity cannot possibly compete with one that burns fossil fuels.
Since solar-generated electricity is, at best, roughly cost-competitive with conventional electricity, it should be obvious that this cannot possibly compete, either.
Which is who nobody on the face of the earth is has tried to power a steel mill with solar cells.
I can't make it any more obvious. If you don't agree, that's fine, we can just let it go.
|
worldnews
|
When somebody builds what? A solar plant? A solar plant near industry? This isn't just feasible it's normal.
China Baowu Steel Group's Wuhan plant is moving from coal to solar
- http://en.people.cn/n3/2017/0701/c90000-9235841.html
Apel Steel Corporation in Alabama has been doing this for years
- http://solarlove.org/98-electricity-can-generated-solar-panels-alabama-steel-plant/
Sandfire built a solar plant for their copper-gold mine
- http://www.sandfire.com.au/operations/degrussa/solar-power-project.html
Fortescue is building off-grid solar plants to support mining operations.
- https://reneweconomy.com.au/alinta-may-build-australias-biggest-off-grid-solar-farm-for-fortescue-mine-38619/
Tata steel has a solar plant at one of their iron ore mines
- http://www.mining.com/indian-centenary-iron-ore-mine-goes-solar/
But apart from specific site examples roughly 18% of US electricity comes from renewable sources. So, roughly speaking, 18% electricity used by steel and all other industry comes from renewable sources. That share is increasing all the time too.
Germany and Denmark have double that number and their steel plants and auto factories don't seem to have a problem running off a significant amount of electricity from solar and wind.
|
worldnews
|
You've pointed out examples of steelmakers using solar to provide a fraction of the power they use. That's great, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
You can't economically produce things like steel and glass just with solar power. You need enormous amounts of heat to melt sand and iron ore, and you get this heat by burning fossil fuels. Trying to get that kind of heat from the electricity generated by solar cells is ridiculously expensive.
|
worldnews
|
I've just been defending my initial point, that's all - these guys are not making their solar cells entirely with solar power, because they are obviously buying their steel and glass and other highly-refined materials pre-made, and letting somebody else burn the fossil fuels to make them.
This was an interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace
My impression is that the energy costs are higher, as you'd expect, but it is offset, in some applications, by lower capital costs and greater flexibility. Unlike blast furnaces, they can vary their output to meet demand.
The power demands are formidable - variations in their power draw can affect the whole power grid!
>Because of the very dynamic quality of the arc furnace load, power systems may require technical measures to maintain the quality of power for other customers; flicker and harmonic distortion are common side-effects of arc furnace operation on a power system. For this reason the power station should be located as close to the EA furnaces as possible.
|
worldnews
|
It's not fractional when it's up 98%. Each example is a different case of heavy industry being able to leverage solar and it's being done all over the world. And that's just some of them.
> You can't economically produce things like steel and glass just with solar power You need enormous amounts of heat to melt sand and iron ore, and you get this heat by burning fossil fuels
As I've mentioned already steel plants get their heat from natural gas and coke, not from grid electricity which can and is being replaced with renewables. The same goes for glass manufacture which is over 70% powered by natural gas. If you're talking about replacing the natural gas used for furnaces then that's perfectly feasible as well. I already gave you two examples of new techniques for this in steel: moving to electrolysis and hydrogen.
We can also just replace natural gas with bio-SNG / renewable gas either made from biowaste like sewage and food waste.The [Swedish are already looking into it](https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:642568/FULLTEXT01.pdf). As are the [Danish](http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/5237878/ris-r-1754.pdf). And the [Brits](http://www.biogas.org.uk/images/upload/news_7_Bio-SNG-Feasibility-Study.pdf). It's not as cheap as just burning shit we found in the ground but that cost doesn't include the environmental impact which is why a carbon tax is, and has always been, necessary.
|
worldnews
|
It's not impractical the economies had just not been right. We should have been fixing that with legislation over the last few decades but in lieu of any sensible policy we have to rely on market forces. This factory thinks it will be right for them in the next few years and I have no reason to doubt that. Primarily because solar PV manufacture is more worried about polysilicon wafers and assembly than they are with large scale glass production. That's usually handled by a specialist in glass manufacture.
|
Economics
|
I would say the problem is that economists get distracted with two things:
1. Institutional wisdom / tradition
2. Modelling to fit metrics to a narrative in a closed story, rather than synthesizing analyses in a forward-looking manner
You can see how those two factors fit together. But in the case of thr fed, equity analysts, etc, we have people fitting dynamic data to fixed institutional models that don't represent the wider multistate behaviors and reorganizations driven by economic pressures. It's easier (or more politically expedient) so describe an economy as a system that has x, y, z and does a, b, and c, and those are the "rules," and then you just fill in the gaps from there. It's a broken methodology, but that's how it works.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.